search

dslm4515 / CMLFS

Clang-Built Musl Linux From Scratch
MIT License
105 stars 18 forks source link

Could we have a more "friendly" license in this? #2

Closed takusuman closed 3 years ago

takusuman commented 3 years ago

As i've seen, this isn't licensed formally yet, so i was going to suggest that we use something like the z-lib license for plain-text documentation. I think that a more copycenter license would help when linking/using content from here in something licensed under a liberal license, like a Wiki licensed under CC-BY, for example.

Sorry for any broken english, i'm still praticing it.

dslm4515 commented 3 years ago

I haven't looked into licensing yet. I also don't remember what the default is for github. I made my repository locally and uploaded to github as means of backup, portability and sharing with who ever is interested in my work.

takusuman commented 3 years ago

I made my repository locally and uploaded to github as means of backup, portability and sharing with who ever is interested in my work.

Well, that's the spirit of open source!

dslm4515 commented 3 years ago

How about:

GNU General Public License v3.0 ?

I just want a license such that anyone can share & modify code, as long as credit is given. BUT i do not want my work used in closed-source projects and I do not want to be liable for warranties (my work is a result of passion and not for making money)

owl4ce commented 3 years ago

How about:

GNU General Public License v3.0 ?

I just want a license such that anyone can share & modify code, as long as credit is given. BUT i do not want my work used in closed-source projects and I do not want to be liable for warranties (my work is a result of passion and not for making money)

I think suitable with MIT or BSD-2-Clause.

owl4ce commented 3 years ago

https://gist.github.com/nicolasdao/a7adda51f2f185e8d2700e1573d8a633

dslm4515 commented 3 years ago

I think suitable with MIT or BSD-2-Clause.

Now that I think about it, why should I worry... say if a company commercializes CMLFS into a OS for profit? From what i understand, GNU GPL3 requires that if CMLFS is used in another project, that project has to be licensed under GNU GPL3.

I suppose I would go for GNU GPL3 if wrote all the source code myself :P

owl4ce commented 3 years ago

Just choose the one that suits with you.

dslm4515 commented 3 years ago

MIT it is.

takusuman commented 3 years ago

I think suitable with MIT or BSD-2-Clause.

Now that I think about it, why should I worry... say if a company commercializes CMLFS into a OS for profit? From what i understand, GNU GPL3 requires that if CMLFS is used in another project, that project has to be licensed under GNU GPL3.

I suppose I would go for GNU GPL3 if wrote all the source code myself :P

I think that, for documentation, CC-BY 4.0 would fit perfectly. Now, for code, i think GPL v2 would be nice; it's the same license that Linux itself and it's largely used, unlike GPL v3 which is a relatively recent license.

Edit: nvm, MIT suits this perfectly.